" I'm not sure how the "market" in the most liberal area of the country somehow decided that more than 60% of it's AM talk radio should consist of hard core right-wing shows."

While it would seem natural, a majority lean in one direction or other politically does not necessarily translate to other areas. IMHO this conservative lean shows that while the populace may be liberal, the people listening to the stations (and setting the ratings) are not. Also, the range of the stations goes far beyond SF which would take it into more conservative parts of NorCal, thus reaching a different demographic.

As for police-ing the airwaves, how would we decide who decides what is "fair and balanced"? Seems like we are creeping back into the area of censorship...

" I'm not sure how the "market" in the most liberal area of the country somehow decided that more than 60% of it's AM talk radio should consist of hard core right-wing shows."

While it would seem natural, a majority lean in one direction or other politically does not necessarily translate to other areas. IMHO this conservative lean shows that while the populace may be liberal, the people listening to the stations (and setting the ratings) are not. Also, the range of the stations goes far beyond SF which would take it into more conservative parts of NorCal, thus reaching a different demographic.

Totally makes sense. I was mostly trying to make the point that conservative talk radio is dominant even in the most liberal part of the country, so I can only imagine it being moreso in places known for being conservative.

Quote

As for police-ing the airwaves, how would we decide who decides what is "fair and balanced"? Seems like we are creeping back into the area of censorship...

Here's what seems like a reasonable summary of the Fairness Doctrine. This 1969 case where it was upheld is interesting:

"The FCC fairness policy was given great credence by the 1969 U.S. Supreme Court case of Red Lion Broadcasting Co., Inc. v. FCC. In that case, a station in Pennsylvania, licensed by Red Lion Co., had aired a "Christian Crusade" program wherein an author, Fred J. Cook, was attacked. When Cook requested time to reply in keeping with the fairness doctrine, the station refused. Upon appeal to the FCC, the Commission declared that there was personal attack and the station had failed to meet its obligation. The station appealed and the case wended its way through the courts and eventually to the Supreme Court. The court ruled for the FCC, giving sanction to the fairness doctrine."

Sounds pretty reasonable to me. I'm not sure how the FD was actually enforced in practice, but I don't think there was some "Ministry of Truth" or political officers monitoring every political broadcast. It sounds like it amounted to (1) a requirement that stations presenting specific political viewpoints show proof of having sought out some opposing views as part of their license renewal, and (2) the right to sue if somebody trashes you without giving you a chance to respond. To interpret this as a violation of the First Amendment seems like an extreme view to me.

I think what you are missing is that in practice stations simply avoided controversial subjects.

There are additional good reasons to oppose the FD, but for the moment I will point out that its logic was that of a time of limited bandwith. In most markets, there were only 2-3 TV stations and AM radio, so a superficially plausible case could be made for the FD. Today however we have the internet, Sat Radio and more. Like so many regulations undertaken by the State, the FD is a solution in search of a problem.

I think what you are missing is that in practice stations simply avoided controversial subjects.

Can you provide an example?

Quote

There are additional good reasons to oppose the FD, but for the moment I will point out that its logic was that of a time of limited bandwith. In most markets, there were only 2-3 TV stations and AM radio, so a superficially plausible case could be made for the FD. Today however we have the internet, Sat Radio and more.

Agreed, but specifically wrt broadcast media, along with the growth in the number of stations there's been a corresponding concentration of ownership of these media in fewer hands, which if anything has made the barrier to entry even higher than it was in 1949. The barrier to entry for the internet is sufficiently low that no such balance requirement is necessary, but I think there remains a good case for enforcing this in broadcast media.

Again, I can't believe the Savages and Hannitys are seriously worried about being booted off the air by some "thought police". The question is how long they (or their liberal counterparts) would be able to get away with making outrageous claims and trashing people if even some small part of their show had to consist of a rebuttal over which they had no control. Nobody who didn't want to listen to it would be forced to do so, so I don't see how anybody can claim this is "censorship".

MD: I think what you are missing is that in practice stations simply avoided controversial subjects.

ROG: Can you provide an example?

Tough to give and example of something that didn't happen More seriously now, the point is that, as comments here have already pointed out, the potential for hassles and disputes about who the other side is (often issues have far more than two sides) means that is that the suits who ran the networks just found it easier to avoid controversy altogether.

QuoteMD There are additional good reasons to oppose the FD, but for the moment I will point out that its logic was that of a time of limited bandwith. In most markets, there were only 2-3 TV stations and AM radio, so a superficially plausible case could be made for the FD. Today however we have the internet, Sat Radio and more.

ROG Agreed, but specifically wrt broadcast media, along with the growth in the number of stations there's been a corresponding concentration of ownership of these media in fewer hands, which if anything has made the barrier to entry even higher than it was in 1949. The barrier to entry for the internet is sufficiently low that no such balance requirement is necessary, but I think there remains a good case for enforcing this in broadcast media.

Which would only arbitrarily handicap broadcast media viz the internet, sat radio, cable TV, sat TV etc. Back in law school, anti-trust law was an area of interest (indeed, my second summer of law school was in that division of the Federal Trade Commission) The issue I think you are misunderstanding is the definition of the market. The market is not broadcast media, the market is the consumer's access to news and opinion. With the internet, newspapers, sat radio, sat TV, cable TV, regular radio, etc, broadcast news simply does not have oligopolistic power. NO ONE DOES.

Again, the FD is solution is search of a problem.

Or are the cowards in Congress thinking in terms of applying the FD to ALL media?!?

MD: I think what you are missing is that in practice stations simply avoided controversial subjects.

ROG: Can you provide an example?

Tough to give and example of something that didn't happen More seriously now, the point is that, as comments here have already pointed out, the potential for hassles and disputes about who the other side is (often issues have far more than two sides) means that is that the suits who ran the networks just found it easier to avoid controversy altogether.

Sorry, but I'm not buying it. From the (admittedly small) glimpses I've seen of how the Vietnam War, Civil Rights struggles, etc. were covered back in the 60s, there was a lot less fear of controversy in the media then than there is today. I attribute some of this to the more drastic limits on media ownership that were in place back then. You had such "controversial" figures as Malcolm X being interviewed on the "Today" show (and given a fair chance to say his piece) back then. I suppose you might be able to have somebody like him on a mainstream show today, but only if a Bill O'Reilly were present to interrupt and attack basically every point he makes.

Quote

QuoteMD There are additional good reasons to oppose the FD, but for the moment I will point out that its logic was that of a time of limited bandwith. In most markets, there were only 2-3 TV stations and AM radio, so a superficially plausible case could be made for the FD. Today however we have the internet, Sat Radio and more.

ROG Agreed, but specifically wrt broadcast media, along with the growth in the number of stations there's been a corresponding concentration of ownership of these media in fewer hands, which if anything has made the barrier to entry even higher than it was in 1949. The barrier to entry for the internet is sufficiently low that no such balance requirement is necessary, but I think there remains a good case for enforcing this in broadcast media.

Compared to the internet, any broadcast media is handicapped by the the limited amount of space and (in most cases, prohibitively) expensive access. Do you not see this crucial difference?

Quote

The issue I think you are misunderstanding is the definition of the market. The market is not broadcast media, the market is the consumer's access to news and opinion. With the internet, newspapers, sat radio, sat TV, cable TV, regular radio, etc, broadcast news simply does not have oligopolistic power. NO ONE DOES.

Yes, people can choose to get their information from sources other than broadcast media (and some do), but the fact is that most people don't. I think this has to do with the fact that TV and radio are still cheap and easy (to receive) compared to the alternative sources you cite. As long as most people are getting their information from broadcast media, I see an obligation to ensure at least some balance there. Otherwise it's just too easy for one set of political views to dominate simply because of it's commercial viability. SB_MIg's point about talk radio in the Bay Area comes to mind.

Quote

Again, the FD is solution is search of a problem.

I think there are ways to implement something like the FD in ways you would consider fair and reasonable, but what I'm getting is that your instinctive mistrust of any "government regulation" (and there are good reasons to not trust) makes you unwilling to even consider this.

Like I've asked before, wouldn't what I suggest have a positive effect *if* it could done fairly and reasonably? Let's explore that possibility a bit, if you would be so kind as to humor me.

Woof Rog, I have been loosley following this conversation, and I'am just wondering if there was some mouth piece out there specificly that you would like to see get more air time thats not getting it or something specific your talking about.

The onley thing I see is that you want, or would like to have,is the right wingers checked with rebutal on their shows.Are you making the claim that the lefts view is not equally or fairley represented?I don't quite see this as true with the last election as being evidence.Besides don't you feel that people are smart enough to make their own decisions on what they choose to believe without being convinced?Obviously yourself being a good example. Minority maybe....But then did it ever occur to you that the right is really more the main stream than you may be willing to admit and that most people have no issue with what your claiming.

Did it ever occur to you that living where you do may have you a little out of touch with the other 99.9% of America TG

The onley thing I see is that you want, or would like to have,is the right wingers checked with rebutal on their shows.

That's something I'd like to see, but if you read my earlier posts in this thread you'll see that I advocate this for liberal as well as right-wing shows.

I don't see it as a matter of people not being smart enough to decide what to believe. What I see is a difference between the right to free speech (guaranteed by the constitution) and the right to say whatever outrageous crap you want and not be challenged or rebutted (not guaranteed).

All the time these right-wing hosts say stuff like "liberals hate America", "liberals want to see more people killed by terrorists", "liberalism is a mental disorder", etc. Sure, a liberal can call in and try to argue with the host, but the host can (and often does) interrupt or just hang up any time he wants. If a bunch of liberals are calling in at once, he's free to put the dumbest-sounding one on the air for the sole purpose of ridiculing the guy (and by extension, all liberal ideas). How much of these guys' toughness and confidence derives from having almost complete control of the exchange?

Crafty has repeatedly argued that the FD largely resulted in stations shying away from controversial political topics. I see no reason to shy away from presenting *any* topic if what you're presenting is factual information, or at least an honest point of view that isn't merely an attack or fear-mongering. But if the "controversial" material in question is mostly unsubstantiated and/or outrageous statements and attacks, and a broadcaster is shying away from presenting it because it would never stand up to any serious challenge or fact-checking, then isn't that what should happen?

Woof Rog, I would say that for the most part I agree with what your saying. Though I doubt that this would/will happen. Hopefully anyone who would here someone say "liberals hate America" or anything like this would dismiss it as worthless spew. Unfortunatly there are those types who do buy into such mindless crap.Just the same its safe to say that this probably happens just as much on the left side as it does the right......none the less theres probably an audience for everything.I think the idea that your speaking of .......checking speakers facts and content of what they are saying would best be served on a program specific setting.More or less a debate type show with a moderator or fact checker for substance. Though I think the audience for this would be limited, as well as those mouth pieces who would be willing to risk their reputations and agendas in a public forum. Hence the money factor for programming as audience equals $$$CNN does do a show similar to this called "cross fire" righty's and lefty's square off on specific topics. I have watched this from time to time.....though I do tire when one side won't let the other present their point, by interupting them. James Carvell is usally best for this tactic. Of course you mentioned this as a problem already........So I don't have a good answer.Unfortunatly, we can not rely on others to be honest and just tell the truth and base it on FACTS.Then again if all would do this we would'nt need lawyers and courts either........ Just my opinion TG

Opinions are like *ssholes. Everyone has one. I'll choose my *sshole and you choose yours "Facts" are often a matter of dispute. IMHO this is clearly a matter for free people to work out for themselves e.g. by changing the station/channel and not for Congress or bureaucrats. If I have already decided that my orientation in tax policy is supply side, I really don't want the government decreeing that I have to listen to a Keynesian in order to hear a supply sider analysis of tax policy. As a matter of fact, I can imagine getting right prickly to anyone trying to make me listen to what I don't want to listen to.

Woof, Like I said I have been loosley following this thread so I dont know all the particulars.......but I'am defintaly against gov.imposed networking....or as Crafty stated being forced to listen to the views or opinions of anyone I don't want to hear.Changing the chanel seems easiest.Besides to hear what you want to hear merly involves tuning into the station that preaches your agenda. As i previously stated theres a audience for everyone......and someone for every audience.A Aerosmith lyric says "talk with yourself and you'll hear waht you want to hear" TG

Stated in non-PC English, the FD means in order to hear one point of view, you have to hear "the other" POV. Of course there are the additional problems of determining:

a) who gets to represent "the other POV"b) whether it needs to have a substantial following (of course if it doesn't it willl be litigated that it does not have a following because it hasn't yet had the govt make people listen to it )c) what to do if there are several other POVs-- do we have to listen to all of them?

I refuse to believe that a congress with an approval gap 7 points worse that Bush, coming into an important election season, that can't seem to get anything done on anything will pass freedom of speech barring legislation that will prohibit the broadcast of a No. 1 show like Rush Limbaugh for example, and make joke balancing like they lamely attempt on Jay Leno to be the law.

That it used to be the law does not prove that this genie can be put back into the bottle.

I don't find compelling Roger's argument that successful shows pick the dumbest liberal caller in order to defeat that view. In fact, these shows are loaded with real clips of liberal politicians in power, in their own words, with context largely preserved. Not with balance or equal time, but their views are discussed at length.

Missed in his analysis, it seems to me, is that the media was NOT balanced under the the last freedom of speech banning doctrine. Rush's success and now so many others is based on the fact that a very widely held viewpoint, roughly called conservatism, was and still is under-expressed elsewhere.

Nor do I find compelling that statements like Michael Savage saying "Liberalism is a mental disorder" require a response. I first do not put him in a category with conservatives. And second, if I was a liberal strategist, I would not encourage prominent liberals to get on his show and raise his stature and balance. I listened to enough Air America to know that either side can digress their message to that level, but the answer is already well stated in this thread - turn the dial, not try to regulate the hatefulness or opinions you find to be misguided.

***Rush's success and now so many others is based on the fact that a very widely held viewpoint, roughly called conservatism, was and still is under-expressed elsewhere.***

Yes. The same for Fox network which liberals despise. Finally, there is a major news network I can turn on to hear views which more closely mirror my own unlike any other station on TV or cable. And this infuriates the left. Their bluff is called, and their hypocracy exposed.

"A man who was engulfed in flames after allegedly crashing a Jeep Cherokee loaded with gas cylinders into Glasgow's airport is unlikely to survive his severe burns, a doctor who treated him said Tuesday," the Associated Press reports from Edinburgh, Scotland:

"The prognosis is not good, and he is not likely to survive," a member of the medical team that treated him at the Royal Alexandra Hospital near Glasgow said on condition of anonymity because details about patients are not to be made public.

Apparently the only details about patients that are not to be made public are the names of doctors who make details about patients public.

Woof GM, Those that know me, know I'am certainly no "Fake but True" Lefty. However I have been thinking and rethinking......The war in Iraq and all that goes along with it......You make an intresting comment/statement or whatever.... in your last post ,"global Jihad".I do believe in A global Jihad.....However I'am not so sure this can be won by invading and destroying countries.....Sure, I supported the removal of Saddaam Husien from power.......though I don't really view him as a jihadist......not in the truest sense of the word.Do you think honsetly a war against "global Jihad" can be won by destroying countries like Iraq?A friend once said to me......"You can kill the man but you can't kill the dream"Would you not agree that global jihad is more an ideal than an individual? TG

The global jihad is rooted in core elements of islamic theology, so as you point out it's an idea that transends individuals and nation-states. It's threat to our collective ideals and way of life are real so we can either choose to fight and win or lose and submit. I fear that short of nuking Mecca and killing off much or the world's muslim poplulation, nothing else will work, but trying to reform the islamic world via our interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq should be tried first before we use scortched earth methods.

BTW, the "fake but true" reference goes back to the CBS scandal where Dan Rather tried sabotaging the 2004 election with the bogus Bush nat'l guard memos. Various figures tried to defend the memos as "fake but true".

Ok, I'am not sure I agree with the termonology.....but ok for sake of argument lets go with "reform"......How do you think weve done so far since 9/11? Would you say we are winning over the Islamic community world wide? Are you saying that sending troops into countries like Iraq is a method of reform? Please expound on that and how thats supposed to work.

Lets look ar Iraq for example......We got rid of Sadaam H. Now we are dealing with the likes of Guys like Sadr......Who would you say is/was the bigger threat? Obviously S.H. was Iraq's "president" but I feel Sadr is much more radical by was of "Islamic Jihad"How far does this go? Ever time a hardline Islamist stands up we take him out?.......I need to buy some weapons manufacturing stock! TG

I fear that short of nuking Mecca and killing off much or the world's muslim poplulation, nothing else will work, but trying to reform the islamic world via our interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq should be tried first before we use scortched earth methods.

Nice attitude. You and Madeleine "I think the price [500,000 - 1,000,000 Iraqi children dead as a result of the economic sanctions] was worth it" Albright have much in common.

Just briefly chiming in here. IIRC In yet another lapse of clarity and testicular fortiude, by accepting the premise of an interviewers question, Half-bright aceded to an assertion of 500,000.

As you and I have discussed on the DBMA Ass'n forum, there is no particular basis for this number. The only article I have seen that seemed to genuinely and seriously assess the human cost of the UNITED NATIONS embargo was in Reason magazine several years ago. As some of us know, Reason is a libertarian oriented publication and as such the majority of its editors and readers feel quite comfortable with Ron Paul type analysis. In other words, there is nothing in the filters through which the magazine view the world that would prevent it from finding/agreeing with very high numbers.

Instead, after concluding that NO ONE really could have a clue, the article's best guestimate was about 100,000-- unlike your assertion of children only, this number simply was of civilians.

This is still a horrendous number, but to whom should we give credit?

*The United Nations-- whose embargo it was and whose leashing of the US when it could have finished off Saddam in the Gulf War necessitated the embargo;

* Oil competitors like Iran, Saudi Arabia and the Soviet Empire who made more money due to the overall decrease in world-wide oil supplies;

*Those who benefited from the corruption of the Oil for Food program-- particularly France, the Soviet Empire and the UN bureaucracy itself all the way up to the Secretary General himself.

Lets wrap this point up and return to the subject of this thread: Media-- yes?

Ok, I'am not sure I agree with the termonology.....but ok for sake of argument lets go with "reform"......How do you think weve done so far since 9/11? Would you say we are winning over the Islamic community world wide? Are you saying that sending troops into countries like Iraq is a method of reform? Please expound on that and how thats supposed to work.

Lets look ar Iraq for example......We got rid of Sadaam H. Now we are dealing with the likes of Guys like Sadr......Who would you say is/was the bigger threat? Obviously S.H. was Iraq's "president" but I feel Sadr is much more radical by was of "Islamic Jihad"How far does this go? Ever time a hardline Islamist stands up we take him out?.......I need to buy some weapons manufacturing stock! TG

Non-state actors need state sponsorship. They can work without it, but having state sponsors greatly increases their range and lethality. Saddam was a state sponsor of terrorism who well might have handed off WMD technology to al qaeda, as the Clinton administration feared. Again, with core islamic theology requiring muslims to engage in jhad until the world is conquered by islam gives us few choices but to either reform islam, shatter it or submit to it. None will be easy or quick, but i'll choose the first two of the three choices.

May I suggest that it would be a more precise formulation to say that we need to allow Islam to reforrm itself-- which can only be accomplished by sane Muslims if we defend ourselves from the insane ones?

1) My point is to challenge the 500,000 number and assert the 100,000 number. IMO Albright's brain fart on this point has greatly damaged the reputation of the US because she stupidly agreed to US ownership of the embargo, when it was a UN embargo pushed by nefarious interests (including fellow Muslim countries) and aceded to by the US. Naturally in that she was the US Secy of State, great weight was given to her words in the Arab/Muslim world precisely because it spoke deeply of poor values/poor thinking-- and just as naturally here in the US her words promptly went down the memory hole.

2) As for casulaties in the War itself, for the numbers you give please give citations for the Lancet (over which IIRC we have already jousted on the Ass'n forum) and "the British government" so stating?

3) As for which thread for GM's theory of the war, lets take it to the "WW3" thread.

Woof GM, Sorry I missed your last post here. My bad. I would say thats a very lofty goal to shatter or reform the worlds largest religion.Do you honestly think were up to the task.....esp. virtually by ourselves.......I would say quality preventive messuares may best suit our purpose, as well as accurate selective targeting.Esp high profile targets like Bin Laden TGoK AGAIN MY BAD...........Move the thread.

With that logic, the next time ABC wants to show "Apollo 13", the "we never went to the moon" loons get equal time for their drivel. "Schindler's List" grants equal time for jihadists or neo-nazis to tell "their side of the story".

TORONTO • VisionTV says it will monitor one of its shows more closely after it broadcast a lecture by an Islamic preacher who said scripture requires Muslims to either fight jihad or finance it.

The multi-faith channel, available in 7.8 million Canadian homes, said it took the precaution following a complaint about last Saturday's broadcast of a lecture by the Pakistani fundamentalist.

In the hour-long talk, Israr Ahmad said, "Jihad in the way of Allah, for the cause of Allah, can be pursued either with your financial resources or your bodily strength when you go to fight the enemy in the battlefield.

"So jihad, the highest form, is fighting in the cause of Allah."

Mr. Ahmad runs a seminary and bookstore in Lahore, Pakistan, and his writings foresee the "global domination of Islam," compare Jews to "parasites," describe the Holocaust as "divine punishment" and predict the "total extermination" of Jews.

His followers in Canada include terror suspect Qayyum Abdul Jamal, who was arrested last summer for his alleged role in a plot to detonate truck bombs in downtown Toronto.

According to Mr. Jamal's wife, Mr. Ahmad was her husband's teacher and mentor.

The television program left some wondering how the Pakistani preacher, who claims that Jews control the world through a secret conspiracy involving financial institutions, made it on to Canada's government-regulated airwaves.

"Israr Ahmad is widely known for his hateful words and vilification of Jews," said Canadian Jewish Congress spokesman Bernie Farber. "We are deeply concerned that Vision would give this individual the imprimatur of Vision's credibility. It was a mistake in judgment and ought to concern all of us."

VisionTV's code of ethics forbids the broadcast of programs that glorify or incite violence or "have the effect of provoking or abetting domestic or international religious or political conflicts."

The broadcaster acknowledged that the show, Dil Dil Pakistan, had talked about jihad and fighting but said it did not contravene the station's policies against incitement because the comments were made in a historical context. But it said the show would be monitored more closely.

"We have essentially a system of flagging shows when complaints are made, where we'll watch subsequent episodes even more carefully than we otherwise do, and take extra care and caution. So that's certainly the case here," said Mark Prasuhn, VisionTV's chief operating officer and vice-president of programming.

Toronto resident Mindy Alter, however, said the message came through loud and clear when she tuned in to the show, which aired from 3 to 4 p.m. on July 14.

"The part about the jihad, he said very specifically that it is incumbent upon Muslims to wage jihad against their enemies until Islam rules supreme over the world," Mrs. Alter said.

"I'm sorry, I don't think that belonged over the airwaves of Canadian TV.... You can put that in whatever context you like. To me that's preaching jihad."

Responded Mr. Prasuhn: "Definitely, the viewer is correct. [Mr. Ahmad] does make the point about, you either contribute financially or through your body, and he uses the word fight. But none of this, as far as I could see, is in any way correlated or referenced to the present day. It is strictly a historical context and reading of the Koran by a Koranic scholar."

Mr. Ahmad is not just a religious scholar. He heads a self-described "revolutionary" organization called Tanzeem-e Islami, which wants to turn Pakistan into a fundamentalist Islamic state.

In his book Lessons From History, he writes that the revival of Islam will begin in Pakistan, because it is the only country that "has the potential for standing up against the nefarious designs of the global power-brokers and to resist the rising tides of the Jewish/Zionist hegemony."

Islam will come to rule in four stages, he claims: the Ultimate World War in the Middle East, the appearance of the anti-Christ, the extermination of the Jews and the "domination of Islam, over the entire globe."

Canadian Muslim Congress founder Tarek Fatah said Mr. Ahmad "is allied to the ultra-conservative Islamists of Pakistan. His weekly TV rants are targeted primarily at fellow Muslims, urging them to segregate themselves from non-Muslims. He is also a promoter of the doctrine of jihad, as in armed warfare against non-Muslims."

Mr. Prasuhn said the show was screened before it was aired and that no problems were identified. He said he watched the show again after receiving a complaint on Monday and did not see a problem.

"He is saying that Muslims have a duty to propagate their faith," Mr. Prasuhn said.

"Then it goes a little further. It isn't directly connected to the word jihad, but in the same paragraph or whatever he then gets into talking about [how] this is accomplished - and again he's kind of referencing Koran and history - accomplished through jihad, which means these two things, financial contribution or fighting.

"So there's a line of thought there, but it's going a bit beyond what's actually there to say he's [saying] if you respect the Koran, you need to today engage in jihad and violence and fighting with non-Muslims. That's not said.

"At no point did I hear him say anything that would reference the present day or that would reference what a practitioner of Islam should do today. Now, that's an inference one might draw, I suppose, but I did not hear it in his words."

Some in Congress pushing for reinstatement of Fairness DoctrineThe influence wielded by conservative talk show hosts draws calls to reinstate the policy.By Jim Puzzanghera, Times Staff WriterJuly 23, 2007

WASHINGTON — It was the decision that launched a thousand lips.

In 1987, the Federal Communications Commission stopped requiring broadcasters to air contrasting views on controversial issues, a policy known as the Fairness Doctrine. The move is widely credited with triggering the explosive growth of political talk radio.

Now, after conservative talk show hosts such as Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Michael Savage helped torpedo a major immigration bill, some in Congress have suggested reinstating the Fairness Doctrine to balance out those powerful syndicated voices.

That has unleashed an armada of opposition on the airwaves, Internet blogs and in Washington, where broadcasters have joined with Republicans to fight what they call an attempt to zip their lips.

Opponents of the Fairness Doctrine said it would make station owners so fearful of balancing viewpoints that they'd simply avoid airing controversial topics — the "chilling effect" on debate that the FCC cited in repealing the rule two decades ago.

"Free speech must be just that — free from government influence, interference and censorship," David K. Rehr, president of the National Assn. of Broadcasters, wrote to lawmakers.

There's little chance the fairness doctrine will return in the near future, as FCC Chairman Kevin J. Martin publicly opposes it and the White House wrote to broadcasters last week assuring them that Bush would veto any legislation reinstating it. But the issue has renewed debate about how far the government should go in regulating the public airwaves.

Some Democrats say conservative-dominated talk radio enables Republicans to mislead the public on important issues such as the Senate immigration reform bill.

"These are public airwaves and the public should be entitled to a fair presentation," said Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), who is considering whether the Fairness Doctrine should be restored.

Republicans say that the policy would result in censorship and warn that it could return if Democrats win the White House in 2008.

"This is a bad idea from a bygone era," Sen. Norm Coleman (R-Minn.) said at a news conference last week with five other Republicans announcing legislation to block reenactment of the policy.

The FCC enacted the Fairness Doctrine in 1949 to ensure the "right of the public to be informed" by presenting "for acceptance or rejection the different attitudes and viewpoints" on controversial issues. The policy was upheld in 1969 by the Supreme Court because the public airwaves were a "scarce resource" that needed to be open to opposing views.

Broadcasters disliked the rule, which put their federal station license at risk if they didn't air all sides of an issue. Michael Harrison, who hosted a weekend talk show on the former KMET-FM in Los Angeles from 1975 to 1985, said the policy kept him from giving his opinions on controversial topics.

"I would never say that liberals were good and conservatives were bad, or vice versa. We would talk about, "Hey, all politicians are bad," or "It's a shame that more people don't vote," said Harrison, who publishes Talkers magazine, which covers the talk radio industry. "It was more of a superficial approach to politics."

The Fairness Doctrine ended during the Reagan administration. In a 1985 report, the FCC concluded the policy inhibited broadcasters from dealing with controversial issues and was no longer needed because of the growth of cable television.

"Many, many broadcasters testified they avoided issues they thought would involve them in complaints," recalled Dennis Patrick, who was chairman of the FCC in 1987 when it repealed the policy. "The commission concluded that the doctrine was having a chilling effect."

The decision was controversial. Congress passed a law in 1987 reinstating the Fairness Doctrine, but Reagan vetoed it.

Shortly afterward, Limbaugh, then a little-known Sacramento disc jockey, emerged as a conservative voice on radio stations nationwide. Another failed congressional attempt to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine in 1993 was dubbed the "Hush Rush" bill.

A 1997 study in the Journal of Legal Studies found that the percentage of AM radio stations with a news, talk or public affairs format jumped to 28% in 1995 from 7% in 1987. Liberal talk radio efforts, such as Air America, have struggled to get ratings.

The Fairness Doctrine seemed dead and buried. Then in January, Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich (D-Ohio), who is running for president, announced that with Democrats back in the House majority, he planned to hold hearings on reviving the policy because media consolidation has made it harder for some voices to be heard.========

Page 2 of 2 << back 1 2

And this spring, conservative talk show hosts unleashed a campaign against the Senate immigration bill, which would have given the nation's 12 million illegal immigrants a path to citizenship. Their listeners flooded the Capitol with complaints, and the bill failed last month on a procedural vote.

Bill supporters immediately lashed out at talk radio.

"Talk radio is running America. We have to deal with the problem," said Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.). And Sens. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.) and John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) said they favored restoring the Fairness Doctrine.

"We have more power than the U.S. Senate and they know it and they're fuming," conservative talk show host Savage said in an interview. The liberal bent of the mainstream media more than compensates for conservative dominance of AM talk radio, he said.

"We're going to have government snitches listening to shows," he said. "And what are they going to do, push a button and then wheel someone into the studio and give their viewpoint?"

But Rep. Maurice D. Hinchey (D-N.Y.) said the rest of the media presented a balanced view of controversial issues, and the Fairness Doctrine would simply reimpose that requirement on talk radio.

Hinchey is readying legislation to reinstitute the doctrine as part of a broad package of media ownership reforms.

"It's important that the American people make decisions for themselves based upon the ability to garner all the information, not just on what somebody wants to give them," he said.

Republicans have seized on comments like that.

Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.), a former radio talk show host, proposed an amendment last month prohibiting the FCC from spending money to reimpose the Fairness Doctrine. It passed 309 to 115 after a parade of Republicans took to the House floor to blast calls to restore the policy. Democrats branded the vote a political stunt. Republicans tried to propose a similar amendment in the Senate last week, but Democrats blocked it .

Republicans vow to continue pressing the issue.

"The American people love a fair fight, and so do I," Pence said. "But there's nothing fair about the Fairness Doctrine."

POLITICAL FUTURES“I want to present a hypothetical here. I know this would not happen, but I’ll offer a compromise, the Limbaugh compromise, to the Democrats in the Senate and in the House... I will agree to pull our troops out of Iraq if you Democrats will agree to my conditions after the defeat... When al-Qa’ida celebrates after we pull out, after we admit defeat, every TV image of al-Qa’ida celebrating must be a split screen. On one side, al-Qa’ida celebrating; on the other side, I want pictures of Harry Reid and Chuck Schumer and Carl Levin smiling and congratulating themselves. When al-Qa’ida slaughters Iraqis after we pull out and we see the pictures of this on TV, every TV image must show a split screen. On one side of the screen, the bloody slaughter scenes; on the other side of the screen, pictures of smiling Harry Reid, smiling Chuck Schumer, smiling Carl Levin congratulating each other with big laughs... I think that’s a reasonable compromise, and I’ve offered it here in all sincerity. If the left will agree to this compromise, I will join them in calling for a pullout from Iraq.” --Rush Limbaugh

What legal recourse (if any) does Fox network have against this? Leftist organizations are contacting those who advertise on Fox network with what sounds like to me a form of intimidation to not advertise on Fox. It is a clear and organized campaign to harrass and frighten local, small advertisers away.

What legal recourse (if any) does Fox network have against this? Leftist organizations are contacting those who advertise on Fox network with what sounds like to me a form of intimidation to not advertise on Fox. It is a clear and organized campaign to harrass and frighten local, small advertisers away.

The tone of voice coming through there is rather snarky and IMO undeservedly so. Nevertheless, I'll flesh out why I have no problem with it. Its called freedom. Fox is free to do as it sees fit, and others are free to do as they see fit in response.

Well I felt your first post was a bit of a brush-off. Your views on freedom of speech are well known.

I would have figured you would have no problem with it in regards to freedom speech.

I also think that Fox has an angle that implies the freedom of speech of their advertisers is being limited by those who disagree with Fox. In that regards or perhaps some other, I wondered if Fox had some cause for a civil suit.

I have a idea!! How about instead of killing low level A'Q In Iraq........or at least in co-operation with killing low level A'Q, We go after bigger fish like the Financiers of A'Q like the gentleman Suadi mentioned in Buzzwardos post (sheik Khalid bin Mahfouz)Just in case it was missed by all the arm chair war lords heres a quote from the article:

Quote

Who is Sheikh Khalid bin Mahfouz? Well, he's a very wealthy and influential Saudi. Big deal, you say. Is there any other kind? Yes, but even by the standards of very wealthy and influential Saudis, this guy is plugged in: He was the personal banker to the Saudi royal family and head of the National Commercial Bank of Saudi Arabia, until he sold it to the Saudi government. He has a swanky pad in London and an Irish passport and multiple U.S. business connections, including to Thomas Kean, the chairman of the 9/11 Commission.

I'm not saying the 9/11 Commission is a Saudi shell operation, merely making the observation that, whenever you come across a big-shot Saudi, it's considerably less than six degrees of separation between him and the most respectable pillars of the American establishment.

As to whether allegations about support for terrorism by the sheikh and his "family, businesses and charities" are "entirely and manifestly false," the Cambridge University Press is going way further than the United States or most foreign governments would. Of his bank's funding of terrorism, Sheikh Mahfouz's lawyer has said: "Like upper management at any other major banking institution, Khalid Bin Mahfouz was not, of course, aware of every wire transfer moving through the bank. Had he known of any transfers that were going to fund al-Qaida or terrorism, he would not have permitted them." Sounds reasonable enough. Except that in this instance the Mahfouz bank was wiring money to the principal Mahfouz charity, the Muwafaq (or "Blessed Relief") Foundation, which in turn transferred them to Osama bin Laden.

Oh wait a minute.....we are so serious about our global war on terror......oh how could I forget......were selling arms to the Saudis. Yep....The shootin gallery is open Partner. TG

Guro Crafty, I have no idea. It was a posted comment on the post by Buzwardo regarding the book that mentioned the Sheik as a Saudi Finacier of AQ........I must have miss posted it on the wrong thread....my apologise...... TGIn the future I promise to try to keep my comments more thread friendly with special emphisis on attention to detail.

Media Blackout: Google News Search Reveals Only One MSM Mention -- FoxNews, Of Course -- Of NASA's Dramatically-Revised Temperature RecordsUpdated: That ND TV Station Reference Was Just To Say Anything's BlogSearch for "NASA temperature" which should bring the story up.

Only two references: One to a ND TV station and one to FoxNews. The FoxNews link has a link for 92 related articles, but every single one of the articles that comes up is about the new claim that global warming will begin -- for reallies this time -- in 2009.

Hitting the "show omitted duplicative results" reveals one more article about the NASA scandal -- but only by conservative online magazine The American Thinker.

And Newsweek dares to call global warming skeptics reality-deniers.

Drudge could help push the word on this, of course, and shame the press into mentioning it, but he won't, because he's a FREAK weather fetishist (today's big story: the heatwave!) and because he refuses to even mention stories that blogs have publicized or broken before he knew which way was up.

The TNR thing, for example, is now in the MSM. Krauthammer covers it today. And Drudge? Boycotting the story, because he doesn't have a piece of it and even acknowledging it would imperil his rather undeserved and quite happenstancical (whatever) position as the Guy Who Makes Millions By Reading The Wires And Putting Up Links.

I'm a little tired of Matt Drudge's jackassery on both points, especially the latter one. The overweening and destructively defensive egotism of a guy who just puts up fucking links he finds on the wires is getting to be a little too much to take.

Not to kiss up to Instapundit (though I'm sending him this link), but Instapundit tries to boost blogs on his blog, pushing blog stories harder than MSM stories even if the MSM stories are a bit more interesting.

Drudge does the opposite, of course, seeing blogs as a threat.

You think Drudge has been pushing anti-Kos stories out of politics? Nope. He's pushing them out of self-interest. The DailyKos is the only blog in the world that even has a significant fraction of his enormous traffic -- pretty much Kos is the leftist Drudge -- and so he's knocking a competitor for entirely personal reasons.

Update: Rob Port of Say Anything tells me the one other MSM mention -- by a ND TV station -- really wasn't by the TV station per se, but just his own blog, which the TV station syndicates.

Here's Rob Port's post; here's the post as it appears syndicated on that TV station's page. If you go to the station's page, you'll see these blogs are not exactly prominently displayed, though I do think it's a neat idea, and a welcome one, for local TV stations to feature local blogs.

I'm not knocking the station really, just noting this hardly counts as a bona-fide MSM mention. Kinda, sorta, but not really. They just linked his blog post, as they do some of his posts. The TV station itself did not report on the story and (presumably) did not broadcast it.

So we're down to exactly one MSM mention, as far as I can tell, and honestly, it's hard even to claim FoxNews is part of the MSM. Certainly the MSM doesn't count them as such. They all think they're just GOP TV.

So, really-- zero MSM mentions of an important story about global warming.

Why?

Because sometimes relevant facts must be withheld from the public so they are not misled by trivial things like evidence, science, and actual news.

Why The New York Times Can Legally Help The Enemy in The War on Terror

By Jeffrey Imm

In July 2007, the Washington Post gave a Hezbollah supporter full coverage of an online column on Jihadism, and in June 2007, both the New York Times and the Washington Post printed editorials by a Hamas figure.

This week, the New York Times has provided online columns on August 8 and August 9 dedicated to brainstorming new ideas on how Jihadists can attack and kill Americans. The New York Times author, Dr. Steven Levitt, a writer on economics, used his online August 8 column "If You Were a Terrorist, How Would You Attack?" to offer some new ideas to Jihadists on ways to murder Americans, and suggested some specific tactics that Jihadists can take to improve both the level of terror and effectiveness of such murders. Then Dr. Levitt invited the general public to offer their own suggestions on how Jihadists might be able to kill Americans, stating "I'm sure many readers have far better ideas. I would love to hear them." And disturbingly, many hundreds of readers obliged Dr. Levitt by offering horrific suggestions to help Jihadists. This was not yet enough for the New York Times, and so on August 9, Dr. Levitt wrote a second online column "Terrorism, Part II", where he defended his right to recommend murder ideas to terrorists, by explaining that there are a "virtually infinite" number of American vulnerabilities, and by claiming that the "terrorists are incompetent" or the "terrorism threat just isn't that great".

Not once in either column does Dr. Levitt ever use the word... "Jihad" or "Jihadists". In Dr. Levitt's view, the threat is only from incompetent criminals that he calls "terrorists", and that view of terrorists as mere "criminals" was echoed the same day by former NATO leader Wesley Clark in another New York Times column "Why Terrorists Aren't Soldiers".

America's Propaganda Vulnerability

The New York Times' online column brainstorming for ideas to kill Americans does point out a massive vulnerability for America -- the fact that during wartime, such a column was editorially acceptable and legal for public distribution.

The real question that Americans should be asking is WHY it is legal and editorially acceptable - not only for the Steven Levitt columns, but also for the Hezbollah and Hamas editorials. This goes back to the fundamental unresolved questions in the minds of a segment of the public as to: (a) is the USA at war or not, (b) if so, who is the enemy, (c) what is our war strategy against the enemy.

Wartime Responses to Aiding the Enemy

Nearly 6 years after the 9/11 attacks, the idea that we as a nation still have large segments of the population that not only don't believe the nation is at war, but also can't identify the enemy is truly disturbing. The imperative need for clear and precise executive government communication on this war is demonstrated by such New York Times and Washington Post columns. Yet there is no public outrage by the government, no public anger by the government, and nothing but silence on these columns.

Would it have been tolerable to President FDR during World War II or to President Woodrow Wilson during World War I, if the major news media were publishing editorials by the enemy, and publishing suggestions on how the enemy could best attack the nation during war? Basic American history clearly answers these questions: FDR had an Office of Censorship and Woodrow Wilson urged the creation of the Sedition Act of 1918. These were wartime measures, because the nation was at war. Moreover, the news media voluntarily complied with the WWII Office of Censorship, and worked with the government towards the shared goal of defeating the enemy.

By contrast, in today's war, the U.S. government has had to struggle to legally have the right to monitor potential saboteurs and sympathizers, and has had to struggle to retain laws to allow the FBI to effectively investigate such enemies. And the news media publishes classified information on U.S. government war strategies and on sensitive information on financial tracking of the enemy.

The Unresolved Questions That Allow Others to Define America's Position

The war against transnational Jihadists and their myriad organizations poses unique challenges in effectively defining America's wartime positions. Unlike WWI or WWII, the current war does not readily allow a nation state or nation states with a publicly recognizable army that can be defined as the enemy to be defeated. These unique challenges require greater clarity, greater precision, and greater communication from the government to the nation than any time in America's history -- regarding the state of war, the identity of the enemy, and the war strategy.

The State of War

The enemy has been precise about its goals and its objectives. Osama Bin Laden's Al Qaeda has declared written war on the United States not once, but twice, once in 1996 and once in 1998. These Jihadist declarations of war have been rarely discussed in the news media or in government discussions about the war. The Washington Post published the 1998 war declaration on September 21, 2001 - 10 days after the 9/11 attacks.

Moreover, Al-Qaeda spokesman Suleiman Abu Gheith has also documented its goals in the Jihadist war against the United States, as well as Al-Qaeda's stated goal to kill at least 4 million Americans.

On the American side, the declaration of war was "The Authorization for Use of Military Force" ("AUMF") (Public law 107-40) passed by Congress on September 18, 2001, authorizing the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the attacks on September 11, 2001. The authorization granted the President the authority to use all "necessary and appropriate force" against those whom he determined "planned, authorized, committed, or aided" the September 11th attacks, or who harbored said persons or groups.

The AUMF should have provided sufficient war-justification for both the American public and the news media, should the enemy be sufficiently identified. However, the AUMF never used either the word "Jihad" or "Jihadists" in defining the enemy.

The Identification of the Enemy

The AUMF provided the rationale for the current war in Afghanistan, based on American intelligence of the role of the Taliban Jihadist camps in training the 9/11 attackers, as it calls for the right to use military force against those who "planned, authorized, committed, or aided" the 9/11 attacks.

However, like this week's New York Times columns by Dr. Steven Levitt, the AUMF also did not use the word "Jihad" or "Jihadist". Moreover, the effort to fight the Jihadists then became tagged with the general term the "War on Terror". Furthermore, many of the government leadership speeches regarding the war have referenced the enemy as "terrorists", as "evil", and as "extremists".

General references to fighting a war against "terrorism", "evil", and "extremists" have enabled widely diverse interpretations by individuals as to who exactly the enemy is, and has allowed virtually every different pundit and commentator to come up with their own interpretation on the identity of the enemy. From the perspective of international relations, this could provide "strategic ambiguity" to allow for tactical realpolitik negotiations among nations that tolerate or host Jihadists to aid in tactical battles in either Afghanistan or Iraq. But it misses the holistic view that for the nation to effectively fight a war - they must be united in identifying the enemy.

In the case of New York Times writer, Dr. Steven Levitt, the "terrorists" that he was referring to are not a wartime "enemy", they are mere "criminals" who he no doubt sees no connection to 9/11 or the AUMF at all. More troubling is that former NATO leader Wesley Clark also views Jihadists as mere "criminals". Furthermore, the New York Times and the Washington Post apparently views neither Hamas or Hezbollah as "enemy" organizations, but apparently views their naming on the State Department Foreign Terrorist Organization as "terrorists" as a political viewpoint.

Al-Qaeda is a Jihadist Organization

The idea that Al-Qaeda is a Jihadist organization may seem to be obvious, but not to all segments of the public and to organizations influencing the government. This plays another part in the blurring of the enemy's identification. As pointed out in numerous articles, there is a large segment of intelligentsia that seeks to obfuscate the enemy's identification by arguing that there is "good Jihad" and "bad Jihad". Dr. Walid Phares' recent column "Preventing the West from Understanding Jihad" demonstrates how apologist literature has even reached the National Defense University, and how apologists argue that the proper term for "bad Jihad" is "Hiraba". Dr. Phare's column was rebutted by Jim Guiard, who argued that America is not threatened by "Jihadist martyrdom", but "Irhabi Murderdom".

As I have mentioned previously in other postings, the fundamental problem for Americans in identifying the enemy, whether it is the vacillating term "War on Terror", or the unwillingness to call the enemy "Jihadists" comes down a conflict in Americans accepting that an enemy group could be affiliated in any way with any religion. America was founded on freedom of religion; it is inherent in our identity as a nation. But in dealing with the war of Jihadists against America, it is a fact that in identifying the enemy, that the present enemy is motivated by very specific religious beliefs.

Those who seek to obfuscate the identity of the enemy argue that if you call the enemy "Jihadists", then you validate their view as being representative of all of Islam. That is a red-herring that seeks to keep Americans in denial, not only about the identity of the enemy, but also about their very real religious motivations. And so... we are left with merely fighting a "War on Terror".

War Strategy Without Agreed-Upon Enemy Identity

Unlike WWI and WWII, where the enemy was clearly identified, the transnational Jihadists are difficult for the American public to process as an enemy. Moreover, while Al-Qaeda has formal declarations of war on the United States, and other Jihadist groups declare war on the USA on a near-daily basis, the only real war declaration that the USA has is the AUMF, that never once uses the word "Jihad". Therefore, without an agreed-upon enemy identification, the U.S. government and public are at major odds as to what, if any, war strategy there should be, and not only just in Afghanistan and Iraq, but also in other parts of the world.

Unlike WWII, where the Nazis were a clearly designated enemy, in 2006, the Washington Post feels no wartime loyalty to preserve classified information about secret CIA prisons holding Jihadists. And that small representative example of the dysfunction in agreeing on enemy war strategy or even the identity of the enemy, has now resulted in major media publishing Jihadist editorials and now publicizing ideas to help the enemy attack and kill Americans.

Enemy Aid is the Price of Ignorance

As I have previously posted, the American public is woefully uninformed as to the scope and the magnitude of the daily World War by Jihadists across the globe. There are easily 20 to 30 Jihadist news stories most days; if the American public on average hears about 2 of those, it would be a miracle. The Jihadist World War is simply not reported as a priority by the American news media, and once again, the Jihadists have not been formally designated as the "enemy". By and large, the American news media finds the Jihadist activities in India, Israel, Somalia, Philippines, Thailand, Europe, UK, and around the world as "isolated incidents" deserving as mention (if at all) on page 30 of foreign news.

This leads to some segments of the population to view that such Jihadists have legitimate "struggles" and are not really "terrorists" either, but are "militants", whose cause deserves a voice in world affairs, as per the New York Times' and Washington Post's editorials for Hamas and Hezbollah.

The more painful realization is that the historical monofocus of Americans on their own affairs makes such world news and world threats to blur from any possible attention spans, except for the occasional suicide bombing in Iraq broadcast on cable news networks. I was reminded of this a few weeks ago, when after writing a story on UK Jihadists threatening the United States, I watched a television game show with my wife, where a premed college student not only didn't know what the capital of the United Kingdom was, but wasn't even sure that the UK was actually a country at all.

Knowing your public is an important part of any public mobilization - whether it is for war - or for any other shared cause. And the New York Times and the Washington Post publications increasingly illustrate how little, 6 years after 9/11, the American public understand about the Jihadist enemy that is at war with the United States.

The price of such ignorance is to tolerate news media, public organizations, and individuals that will promote enemy propaganda, enemy incitement, and will provide information to the enemy on how to harm America, without the laws, the restraint, and the good sense to realize that all of this is unacceptable during war-time. And the price of such ignorance is a nation that is not prepared, not mobilized, and not energized for the long fight against the enemy.

In this war against Jihad, America must decide if it can continue to tolerate the price of ignorance, or if instead it is willing to make the investment in strategic war planning, communication, clear identification of the enemy and its threats, and unified purpose necessary to defeat its enemies.

Sources:

August 8, 2007 - The New York Times: "If You Were a Terrorist, How Would You Attack?", by Steven D. Levitt

August 9, 2007 - The New York Times: "Terrorism, Part II", by Steven D. Levitt

August 8, 2007 - The New York Times: "Why Terrorists Aren't Soldiers", by Wesley K. Clark and Kal Raustiala

I find this story about corruption in China amazing because it was first reported in *Chinese* media. I would think that in the past those reporting this corruption, and not those participating in the corruption would have been the ones in trouble.